DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 3/12/20204 was/were in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 8-9 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites “wherein when the liquid inlet pipe is a stainless steel pipe or a carbon steel pipe”. The metes and bounds of “when the liquid pipe is a stainless steel pipe or carbon steel pipe” are unclear because it is unclear what is required when the liquid pipe is not a stainless steel pipe or carbon steel pipe. For purposes of examination “wherein when the liquid inlet pipe is a stainless steel pipe or a carbon steel pipe” will be considered - - wherein the liquid inlet pipe is a stainless steel pipe or a carbon steel pipe - - .
Claim 9 recites “wherein when the liquid inlet pipe is a copper pipe and the liquid separator body is made of stainless steel”. The metes and bounds of “when the liquid inlet pipe is a copper pipe and the liquid separator body is made of stainless steel” are unclear because it is unclear what is required when the liquid inlet pipe is not a copper pipe and the liquid separator body is not made of stainless steel. For purposes of examination “wherein when the liquid inlet pipe is a copper pipe and the liquid separator body is made of stainless steel” will be considered - - wherein the liquid inlet pipe is a copper pipe and the liquid separator body is made of stainless steel - - .
Claim 9 recites “the liquid inlet pipe”. However, it is unclear what “liquid inlet pipe” is being referred to because there is a lack of antecedent basis for the “liquid inlet pipe”. For purposes of examination “the liquid inlet pipe” will be considered - - the liquid inlet pipe - - .
Claim 12 recites “wherein the at least two lining plates are seal-welded to a liquid outlet end of the cylinder body after overlapped”. The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear because it is unclear what is meant by “after overlapped”. For purposes of examination “wherein the at least two lining plates are seal-welded to a liquid outlet end of the cylinder body after overlapped” will be considered - - wherein the at least two lining plates are seal-welded to a liquid outlet end of the cylinder body and overlapped by the cylinder body - -
Claim(s) 13 are rejected to as being dependent from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rong (CN202501678).
Per claim 1, Rong teaches a liquid separator for refrigeration, comprising:
a liquid separator body (11, 12, 14, 40) having a liquid separator inner chamber (20); and
a mixing and flow-guiding plate (50) arranged in the liquid separator inner chamber (20),
wherein a recessed chamber portion (see annotated figure below of figure 2) is arranged on the mixing and flow-guiding plate (50),
a first mixing chamber (space formed by inner surfaces of 50 and ) is formed in the recessed chamber portion,
a second mixing chamber (see annotated figure below of figure 2) is formed between the mixing and flow-guiding plate (50) and a liquid outlet end (upper end of the liquid-separator body as shown in figure 2) of the liquid separator body (11, 12, 14, 40), and
a plurality of throttling flow-guiding holes (51) in communication with the first mixing chamber (space formed by inner surface of 50) and the second mixing chamber (see annotated figure below of figure 2) are evenly distributed along a circumferential direction of the mixing and flow- guiding plate (see figure 2); and
the recessed chamber portion allows two phases of refrigerants entering the first mixing chamber to be mixed and then flow back along the first mixing chamber, and then flow to the second mixing chamber through the throttling flow-guiding holes (“the refrigerant again generate eddy current in the inner cavity 20, the gas-liquid two-phase refrigerant further sufficiently mixed and uniformly into each liquid dividing tube (40).”, para. 0018).
PNG
media_image1.png
422
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Per claim 2, Rong meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Rong teaches wherein the plurality of throttling flow-guiding holes (51) evenly distributed along the circumferential direction of the mixing and flow-guiding plate are through holes (see figure 2).
To clarify, Rong teaches “through holes”, thus “recess holes formed by being enclosed by openings of two curved stretching portions that are located at both sides of the mixing and flow-guiding plate and being centrally symmetric” are not required to be disclosed by the prior art.
Per claim 3, Rong meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Rong teaches wherein the mixing and flow-guiding plate (50) comprises a plate body (material body of 50) and the recessed chamber portion that is formed in a center of the plate body and extends toward the liquid outlet end of the liquid separator body (see figure 1 showing the recessed chamber portion extending vertically upward toward the liquid outlet end), and a transmission channel (see annotated figure below of figure 2) is formed between the plate body and a liquid inlet end of the liquid separator body.
PNG
media_image2.png
379
471
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Per claim 4, Rong meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Rong teaches a liquid inlet pipe (30), wherein the liquid inlet pipe is sealed to a liquid inlet pipe hole (accommodating hole for 30) of the liquid separator body.
Regarding the seal being seal-welded, the Examiner is interpreting the limitations as a product by process and per MPEP 2113, "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”. Since the product in the product by process claim is the same as the prior art of Rong the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.
Per claim 18, Rong teaches an air conditioner (“air-cooled heat pump”, para. 0022), comprising a throttling device (inherent), an evaporator (“evaporator”, para. 0022), and the liquid separator (figure 1 and 2) for refrigeration as claimed in claim 1, wherein the liquid separator for refrigeration is connected between the throttling device and the evaporator, the throttling device outputs the refrigerants to the first mixing chamber of the liquid separator for refrigeration, and the refrigerants are output to the evaporator after mixed using the first mixing chamber and the second mixing chamber (“This utility model further claims an air cooling heat pump machine set, comprising a liquid distributor, an air-cooled heat pump machine set in the working process, the application of the liquid to make the cooling medium from the inlet pipe 30 evenly distributed to a plurality of distribution pipes 40. so as to evenly flow into several fin type evaporator, the liquid can obviously improve separating condition of heat exchanger, the various fins, fin heat exchange of cold medium quantity uniformly fully and uniformly, the frosting, increasing the heat transfer capacity of the machine set, the machine set energy efficiency is increased”, para. 0022).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rong (CN 202501678).
Per claim 5, Rong meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 4. Further, Rong teaches wherein an output end (upper end of 30 as shown in figure 2) of the liquid inlet pipe (30) extends to the first mixing chamber (see figure 2) but fails to explicitly teach the output end extending into the first mixing chamber.
The disclosure of the instant invention fails to provide criticality to having the output end extend into the first mixing chamber and it would have been obvious matter of design choice to modify Rong by having the output end extend into the first mixing chamber, since applicant has not disclosed that having the output end extending into the first mixing chamber solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that liquid separator would perform equally well with output end extending into the first mixing chamber. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to extend the output end into the first mixing chamber in order to advantageously ensure full insertion of the pipe into the liquid separator.
Per claim 6, Rong meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 4. Further, Rong teaches wherein an output end of the face of the liquid inlet pipe is located outside the first mixing chamber (see figure 2) but fails to explicitly teach a distance between an output end face of the liquid inlet pipe and an opening end face of the first mixing chamber is less than or equal to 0.8 times an outer diameter of the liquid inlet pipe.
The disclosure of the instant invention fails to provide criticality to having a distance between an output end face of the liquid inlet pipe and an opening end face of the first mixing chamber being less than or equal to 0.8 times an outer diameter of the liquid inlet pipe and it would have been obvious matter of design choice to modify Rong by having a distance between an output end face of the liquid inlet pipe and an opening end face of the first mixing chamber be less than or equal to 0.8 times an outer diameter of the liquid inlet pipe, since applicant has not disclosed that having the output end extending into the first mixing chamber solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that liquid separator would perform equally well with output end extending into the first mixing chamber. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to extend the output end into the first mixing chamber in order to advantageously ensure full insertion of the pipe into the liquid separator.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rong (CN 202501678) in view of Masuda (JPH1163734).
Per claim 7, Rong meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Rong fails to explicitly teach wherein a flanged portion facing an interior or exterior of the liquid separator body is arranged in a circumferential direction of the liquid inlet pipe hole, and the liquid inlet pipe is internally or externally sleeved on the flanged portion and seal-welded with the flanged portion.
However, Masuda teaches a liquid separator teaches wherein a flanged portion facing an interior a liquid separator body (41) is arranged in a circumferential direction of a liquid inlet pipe hole (49), and the liquid inlet pipe (48) is internally sleeved on the flanged portion and sealed with the flanged portion for low cost manufacturing (pg. 3 of translation). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a flanged portion facing an interior the liquid separator body is arranged in a circumferential direction of a liquid inlet pipe hole, and the liquid inlet pipe is internally sleeved on the flanged portion and sealed with the flanged portion, as taught by Masuda in the invention of Rong, in order to advantageously provide low cost manufacturing (pg. 3 of translation).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rong (CN 202501678) in view of Ohno et al. (US 2022/0243968).
Per claim 8, Rong meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 4. Further, Rong teaches the liquid inlet pipe (30) and pipeline pipe (there is inherently a pipeline pipe to deliver the fluid to the liquid separator device) but fails to explicitly teach wherein when the liquid inlet pipe is a stainless steel pipe or a carbon steel pipe, the liquid separator for refrigeration further comprises a copper sleeve connecting pipe, wherein the copper sleeve connecting pipe is internally sleeved on an end portion of the liquid inlet pipe, and the pipeline copper pipe is internally sleeved on the copper sleeve connecting pipe; and a length of an overlap region where the pipeline copper pipe, the copper sleeve connecting pipe, and the liquid inlet pipe are sleeved is L11, a sleeving length of the pipeline copper pipe and the copper sleeve connecting pipe is L01, a sleeving length of the copper sleeve connecting pipe and the liquid inlet pipe is L21, and 0.2 L01≤L11≤ 0.8 L01 and 0.2 L21 ≤L11≤0.8 L21 are satisfied.
Regarding the liquid inlet pipe, copper sleeve connecting pipe, and pipeline pipe configuration, Ohno teaches a refrigerant connection including wherein a liquid inlet pipe (21, 22) is a stainless steel pipe (“Stainless steel”, para. 0041), the connection further comprising a copper sleeve connecting pipe (50, “the coupling pipe 50 is made of copper”, para. 0071), wherein the copper sleeve connecting pipe is internally sleeved on an end portion (43 of the liquid inlet pipe (21,22), and a pipeline copper pipe (100; “The other refrigerant pipe 100 is made of the same copper as the coupling pipe 50”, para. 0071) is internally sleeved on the sleeve connecting pipe (50); and a length of an overlap region wherein the pipeline pipe, the sleeve connecting pipe, and the liquid inlet pipe are sleeved (see figure 6). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a liquid inlet pipe, a sleeve connecting pipe, wherein the copper sleeve connecting pipe is internally sleeved on an end portion of the liquid inlet pipe, and a pipeline pipe is internally sleeved on the sleeve connecting pipe; and a length of an overlap region wherein the pipeline pipe, the sleeve connecting pipe, and the liquid inlet pipe are sleeved, as taught by Ohno in the invention of Rong, in order to advantageously maintain strength in a refrigerant pipe connection.
Regarding the overlap configuration, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art using known methods to yield predicable results to have provide the claimed overlap configuration. Further, there is no change in the respective functions of the claimed overlap configuration. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the claimed overlap configuration in order to advantageously provide a secure refrigerant connection.
Per claim 9, Rong meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 4. Further, Rong fails to explicitly teach wherein the liquid inlet pipe is a copper pipe and the liquid separator body is made of stainless steel, the liquid inlet pipe is internally sleeved on a flanged portion in a circumferential direction of the liquid inlet pipe hole, and a pipeline copper pipe is internally sleeved on the liquid inlet pipe; and a length of an overlap region where the pipeline copper pipe, the liquid inlet pipe, and the flanged portion are sleeved is L11', a sleeving length of the pipeline copper pipe and the liquid inlet pipe is L01', a sleeving length of the liquid inlet pipe and the flanged portion is L21', and 0.2 L0l'<L11'<0.8 L0l' and 0.2 L21'<L11'<0.8 L21' are satisfied.
Regarding the liquid inlet pipe and pipeline pipe configuration, Ohno teaches wherein a liquid inlet pipe (50) and body (21, 22), the liquid inlet pipe (50) is internally sleeved on a flanged portion (43) in a circumferential direction of a liquid inlet pipe hole (hole formed by 50; see figure 6), and a pipeline copper pipe (100; “The other refrigerant pipe 100 is made of the same copper as the coupling pipe 50”, para. 0071) is internally sleeved on the liquid inlet pipe (50); and a length of an overlap region where the pipeline copper pipe, the liquid inlet pipe, and the flanged portion are sleeved (see figure 6) for maintaining strength in a refrigerant pipe connection (para. 0161). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a liquid inlet pipe and body, the liquid inlet pipe is internally sleeved on a flanged portion in a circumferential direction of a liquid inlet pipe hole, and a pipeline copper pipe is internally sleeved on the liquid inlet pipe; and a length of an overlap region where the pipeline copper pipe, the liquid inlet pipe, and the flanged portion are sleeved, as taught by Ohno in the invention of Rong, in order to advantageously maintain strength in a refrigerant pipe connection.
Regarding the overlap configuration, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art using known methods to yield predicable results to have provide the claimed overlap configuration. Further, there is no change in the respective functions of the claimed overlap configuration. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the claimed overlap configuration in order to advantageously provide a secure refrigerant connection.
Regarding the liquid inlet pipe being made of copper, the Examiner take OFFICIAL NOTICE that using copper for pipe is old and well known for its excellent workability, thermal conductivity, and corrosion resistance. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the liquid inlet pipe made of copper in order to advantageously provide a material with good workability, thermal conductivity, and corrosion resistance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 10-11 and 14-17 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Satou et al. (US 2020/0363107) teaches a liquid separator device.
Michitsuji et al. (US 2015/0000332) teaches a liquid separator device.
Park (KR2014014691) teaches a liquid separator device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J TEITELBAUM whose telephone number is (571)270-5142. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am-4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FRANTZ JULES can be reached on (571) 272-66816681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAVID J TEITELBAUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763